I can’t explain it but this is my favorite Tarantino movie. It came out after pulp fiction, so it had no chance with critics who wanted something they didn’t get. But I love every bit of it from the characters to the music. It’s such a great movie, full of amazing performances. Also my favorite DeNiro character. DeNiro always plays these gangsters and criminals that are super competent, confident, charming, etc. In Jackie Brown he plays a criminal who is a quiet, burnt out loser, with no future and no use. I really loved how he went against type.
The plot of the movie revolves around a comically exaggerated, but supposedly functionally correct retelling of the development program of the Bradley. One of the writers of the movie, which was based on the tell all book he wrote, was also the main character in the movie that is fighting against the program, if that gives an idea of the position the movie takes. The writer fundamentally disagrees with the concept of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and therefore paints anyone who supports to be a complete moron.
(Skip to about 8:10 if you want to get past summaries of the modern company James Burton keeps)
Basically the movie is nearly an inversion of reality when it comes to who was actually responsible for causing the bloated budget of the thing, with the hero of the movie’s real world persona, James Burton, basically being a gigantic bonehead, seemingly intentionally not understanding the concept of an IFV compared to an APC, and throwing as many wrenches into as many processes as possible to get the project cancelled.
He keeps demanding destruction tests of prototypes where the outcome of said tests was never in doubt. At various points in the movie, there are things that Burton was actually responsible for which are rewritten to make others responsible for, and the movie often makes it seem like procedures which are entirely justifiable and routine are actually examples of corruption and manipulation.
For those unaware… APC means Armored Personnel Carrier. The idea is a lightly armored and armed vehicle that can transport troops into and out of a battle zone, basically something more robust than a car.
IFV means Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Idea of this thing is that it transports troops, but sticks around and is a significant factor in the battle, and is thus more heavily armed and armored, such that it has a decent chance of surviving things like infantry carried anti armor weapons, and can do significant damage to entrenched enemy infantry positions.
Anyway, yeah as seen recently rather famously in Ukraine, with the vid of a Bradley crew (there were actually 2 in the encounter but w/e) succesfully stunning and possibly combat neutralizing a t 90 at close range, they are quite capable vehicles when operated by a well trained crew.
Is US Military Procurement and Development an absurdly expensive process? Yes, and part of that is due to actual waste, corruption and ‘alternative accounting’, but the Pentagon Wars is not a good example of how this works. The other part of it has to do with the extreme engineering and technology involved in making military grade vehicles.
A week ago I saw this post and far too many people were replying saying that they don't see a problem with allowing religion in the military. I replied saying the crusades never ended. This film provides tip of the iceberg insight in to how scarily accurate that actually is.
As a Christian, I am certain that faith should never be mixed with state or mitary. As a matter of fact, in the new testament, Jesus made sure to say “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”
Any “Christian” that says otherwise, is NOT a a Christian.
imdb.com
Active